[Advaita-l] madhyamam

[Srikanta Narayanaswami]

> If it is your contention that we should form some highly unique and personal 
> views
> about Sanskrit verses with absolutely no regard for basic grammar at all, then 
>I 
>
> 
> can only say, good luck to you! If on the other hand, you agree that language 
> usage
> has an element of grammar to it, please re-read my posting with an open mind.
> Nothing further to add...
> 
> Thank you,
> Vidyasankar
> 
> __________________________
> 
> Exactly,The issue is not on basic grammar but the use of the 
> word"madhyamam"or"madhyagam"I have also seen in most of the cases the 
> word"madhyagam"is used.Here the word "madhyamam'is used as a noun,but the 
> word"madhyagam"is used as a verb.There is nothing wrong in using this way 

I hesitate to respond to this, but am doing so only to clear all the confusion 
that may
have been created in the minds of those who may be silently reading this thread.

The issue you have raised is ALL about grammar and connotations of words. You 
say 

it is not about grammar, yet go on to talk about nouns and verbs. The Sloka in 
question
salutes the guru paramparA as a whole, not an individual. The first line of the 
Sloka
has two samAsa-s (compounds) in it, which are both nouns, referring to the 
paramparA.
Whether the reading be madhyamAM or madhyagAM, that grammatical situation is not
going to change. Contrary to your assertion in another post, "SankarAcAryaH 
madhyamaH"
will never work in this context, again for purely grammatical reasons. That 
paramparA,
which has SankarAcArya in the middle can only be SankarAcArya-madhyamA or it can
be SankarAcArya-madhyagA. Whichever it is, the samAsa has to further take on an
anusvAra at the end, as it an object of the verb vande, in the second line of 
the verse.

Everything else that you have said is a mere flight of fancy. The supposed 
reference to
bauddha madhyamaka-s is non-existent. The supposed reference to uttama-madhyama-
adhama is also non-existent, given that the verse explicitly has 
Arambha-madhyama-
paryanta. All I can add at this juncture is that a reading of any of the 
numerous textbooks
on Sanskrit grammar along with a good Sanskrit dictionary would be beneficial.


Having exhausted all arms in your arsenal starting with "you must have 
viveka','dont tilt the windmills'you have taken recourse to the another way as a 
"grammerian".you can verif any grammar book that any compund word must 
necessarily have samasa in it.it is not 'shankaracharya madhyamah",but it is 
"shankaracharya madhymam'among the madhyama,which gives unintended understanding 
as you yourself 

say.The word 'madhyagam"has the intended understanding without the the nibbling 
it has brought.Firstly,I want to know whether you are really aware of the usage 
of "madhyagam"?otherwise.,let there be no "kite flying".

P.S:I have also verified from a Vyakarana vachaspati,vidya bhushana 
T.S.Sathyanarayana from the oriental library in Mysore,that there is 
"Deshavaci"here,but only "sandharbha vaci'in context with the slokah.

N.Srikanta.